DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SYNOPSIS
Name- Deepesh Raj
Roll no. - 2014034
Topic: Interpretation of Knowledge under IPC
Subject: Criminal Law

Introduction
Mens rea: The meaning of Mens rea in which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". In other
words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was
committed matters. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between
someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to
commit a crime. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which is simply Latin for a
person cannot be convicted and punished in a proceeding of a criminal nature unless it can be
shown that he had a guilty mind. Under Mens Rea there are seven element which are as
followed Knowledge, Intention, Belief, FORESIGHT, Recklessness, Negligence and Motive
under Indian Penal Code.

Objective of the study

This project aims at scrutinizing the element of knowledge with respect to the criminal
offences. In this project we will see the differentiation between Knowledge and 6 other
element of Mens Rea i.e Intension, Belief, Foresight, Recklessness, Negligence and Motive
with the help of the relevant case law the importance and mandate of knowledge in the ambit
of mens rea will be dealt by the researcher through this study.

Scope of the Study

This study will restrict its ambit to the element of mens rea with respect to knowledge,
Intension, Belief, foresight, Recklessness, Neglience and Motive and the in the cases of
criminal offences taking into account Indian cases under Indian Penal Code.

Literature Review

Article
1. THE CRIMINAL DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE
- J. LL. J. EDWARDS.

To establish criminal guilt it is often necessary to consider what degree of knowledge is

sufficient to incur liability. In two branches of criminal law, namely, statutory offences
involving knowledge and aiding and abetting, this question is of such practical importance
that it is surprising to find little or no treatment of the subject in any of the standard works.'
In the recent case of Roper v. Taylor's Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd1., an attempt was made
by Devlin J. to categorise the various degrees of knowledge which are relevant in statutory
crimes, but it is respectfully suggested that his conclusions must be treated with reserve,
since, with one exception, they were put forward without any apparent citation or
examination of the relevant cases2. So far as the requisite grades of knowledge in aiding and
abetting are concerned there have also been several recent cases a in which the courts have
sought to re-enunciate the correct principles. In both spheres of liability the principal doubt
concerns negligence as a state of mind. Whereas on a charge of aiding and abetting it is
reasonably clear that nothing less than actual knowledge or connivance is required.3

THE BURDEN OF KNOWLEDGE

1

[1951] 2 T.L.R. 284, at pp. 287-8.

Johnson v. Youden [1950] 1 All E.R. 300

17 Mod. L. Rev. 294 1954

-Christian Turner

Knowing is a personal experience. One's store of knowledge is no more, and no less, than the
configuration of certain of the contents of his or her brain. However, there are differing views
as to what characteristics are necessary to label some cognitive state, or thought, as
"knowledge." Some would require that a thought be justified, true, and believed. It is highly
contested precisely what kind of truth and what kind of justifications, whether in the form of
pure logical entailment or mere evidence, are needed to elevate a mere belief to the special,
objective status of knowledge.' Some are happy not to insist on truth or justification at all.
These differing views do not, however, constitute a substantive debate. They merely describe,
using the same label, slightly different things. To the extent there is a disagreement, it
concerns which of these "things" is worth talking about. For my purposes, it is sufficient to
reflect on the functional nature of the qualities of those thoughts I am calling knowledge.
The problem that is the subject of this Article is how to handle situations in which people
might gain thoughts they would rather not have. What kind of thoughts? Not pure desires,
though surely an interesting issue surrounds the tendency of the brain simultaneously to
provoke and to inhibit conduct by fueling our stores of desire, guilt, and inhibition.
Since my concern is with the effects of thoughts encapsulating predictive and descriptive
facts about the world, particularly the ill effects, I tend to think of knowledge as a presumed
capacity. That is, knowledge is a quality of the brain that represents what the holder presumes
to be a capacity to act with purpose, to predict, and to understand sensory information. This
description is similar to another definition of knowledge as a quality that "empowers its
possessors with the capacity for intellectual or physical action,"4 but does not require that this
capacity be actual.5

JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE IN THE CRMINAL LAW: DEFENCES UNDER

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
-Ameya Kilara

4 Paul A. David & Dominique Foray, Economic Fundamentals of the Knowledge Society, 1 POL'Y Futures EDUC. 20, 25
(2003).

5 43 Ga. L. Rev. 297 2008-2009

The concept of 'culpability' as a wider category than 'liability', explained at the start of the
preceding section, also forms the starting point of the present enquiry. The emergence of
culpability or guilt as an all-encompassing basis for punishment had to necessarily involve a
re-conceptualization of what a wrongdoing is. In the earlier paradigm, guilt was synonymous
with a violation of the elements of an offence. Exculpatory claims were extrinsic to the
finding of guilt- a person could thus be "guilty but excused". Fletcher provides a clear picture
of the 'structure of wrongdoing' which is consistent with the current posture of guilt being
synonymous with culpability.
WRONGDOING = INCULPATORY DIMENSION + EXCULPATORY DIMENSION
Definition of offense Claims of Justification & Excuse
The intention and knowledge required for the offence of murder are subjective components of
the definition of the offense, objectively determined. The concept of culpability arises in
connection with the distinct inquiry into the attribution of wrongful conduct. 6 Claims of
justification and excuse do not bear upon the mens rea of the offence but rather bear upon the
attribution of the wrongful conduct to the defendant.7

6 Supra note 4, at 552.

7 19 Student B. Rev 12 2007